]]>I was hoping to have my new book, Genesis Chronology and Egyptian King-lists: The Egyptian Origins of Genesis History: Volume I, the Egyptian Dynastic Period, my follow up to The Moses Mystery, out during February. There has been a couple of minor production glitches and a February release is possible, but it might take another week or two. In the meantime, you can now read Chapter One: The Mystery of the Genesis “Begats.”

]]>http://biblemythhistory.com/read-chapter-one-of-genesis-chronology-and-egyptian-king-lists/feed/0329Teaser for “Genesis Chronology and Egyptian King-lists”http://biblemythhistory.com/teaser-for-genesis-chronology-and-egyptian-king-lists/
http://biblemythhistory.com/teaser-for-genesis-chronology-and-egyptian-king-lists/#respondWed, 02 Jan 2019 18:15:02 +0000http://biblemythhistory.com/?p=319Here’s some information about my next book, Genesis Chronology and Egyptian King-Lists: The Egyptian Origins of Genesis History, Volume 1: Egypt’s Dynastic Period. Over the next couple of weeks, I will post a Table of Contents …Continue Reading

]]>Here’s some information about my next book, Genesis Chronology and Egyptian King-Lists: The Egyptian Origins of Genesis History, Volume 1: Egypt’s Dynastic Period. Over the next couple of weeks, I will post a Table of Contents and readable access to the first chapter. So far, the release date is still set for no later than mid-February.

Revealed! the hidden links between Genesis chronology and Egyptian history

The Book of Genesis
contains a 2,300-year chronology of Patriarchal births and deaths, from
Adam to Joseph. Most biblical scholars believe the lists were fictional
creations but Gary Greenberg, the provocative author of The Moses Mystery, says the birth and death dates contain a
disguised but accurate chronology of Egypt’s dynastic history.

Based on a deep and thorough examination of the many
problems in establishing an accurate Egyptian chronology, Greenberg makes a
compelling case that an alignment of the Genesis birth-death chronology with
the High Egyptian Chronology favored by many Egyptologists demonstrates a precise one-to-one relationship between most
Genesis birth and death dates and the starting years for Egypt’s first eighteen
dynasties and many of its most important kings.

Some of the surprising
discoveries in Genesis Chronology and
Egyptian King-lists

The patriarch Enoch lived 365 years, a puzzling solar reference from a lunar calendar culture. What very important astronomical and chronological event (utilized by Egyptologists) happened in the year he died?

The patriarch Methuselah lived for 969 years, the longest-lived person in the bible. What important Egyptian political period lasted 969 years and ended in the year Methuselah died?

The patriarch Eber’s birth and death dates coincide with the same years in which two of Egypt’s most important and celebrated political events occurred. Find out what they were.

The patriarch Peleg’s name means “divided.” What division occurred in Egypt in the year Peleg died? Which important Egyptian king ascended to the throne in the year Peleg was born?

The patriarch Joseph guided the Pharaoh to unprecedented political power in Egypt. What is the chronological and political correlation between Joseph’s rise to power and the Thutmosid kings?

]]>http://biblemythhistory.com/teaser-for-genesis-chronology-and-egyptian-king-lists/feed/0319Long-delayed supplement to “The Moses Mystery” to be released early 2019.http://biblemythhistory.com/long-delayed-supplement-to-the-moses-mystery-to-be-released-early-2019/
http://biblemythhistory.com/long-delayed-supplement-to-the-moses-mystery-to-be-released-early-2019/#respondSun, 16 Dec 2018 20:30:03 +0000http://biblemythhistory.com/?p=310Those of you who read my book The Moses Mystery: The Egyptian Origins of the Jewish People, might recall that a portion of the argument depended on an extensive study of Egyptian Chronology. Unfortunately, since …Continue Reading

]]>Those of you who read my book The Moses Mystery: The Egyptian Origins of the Jewish People, might recall that a portion of the argument depended on an extensive study of Egyptian Chronology. Unfortunately, since the book was written for the popular market and the full study would have more than doubled the length of the book, the publishers strongly opposed my inclusion of the extra material. After negotiations, the editor agreed that I could provide a significantly abbreviated summary of the material, which I did. In the book, I said I would separately publish the chronological material.

That was about 20 years ago, and life being what it is, I wound up with new book deals and new directions of interest. Earlier this year, I convinced myself to go back to my original research, do a lot of updating, and separately publish my detailed study showing that the author of the Book of Genesis used ancient Egyptian archival material to fashion his chronological history of Genesis, from Creation to the death of Joseph.

This is going to be a massive study dealing with Egyptian chronology, mythology, and history. My initial plan has been to do a three-volume study titled Genesis Chronology and Egyptian King-lists: the Egyptian origins of Genesis history. “Volume I, Egypt’s Dynastic Period” is now completed and going through the process of transformation into a book. I expect it to be published no later than February 2019. The first volume is the one that supplements The Moses Mystery. Over the next few weeks, I will release some information about Volume I of the Genesis study.

The second volume will deal with the mythological chronology present in Egyptian king-lists and its relationship to Genesis. This will result in some substantial revelations about the nature of Egypt’s mythological chronology and the Genesis author’s reliance on that mythological chronology. The third volume will deal with the chronology of Genesis Creation and the patriarchal history from Adam to Joseph. I will show that almost all of Genesis history is highly dependent on Egyptian mythology. These last two volumes can be considered supplements to my 101 Myths of the Bible: How ancient scribes invented biblical history.

My original publishing plan called for me to release Volume 2 either in late 2019 or early 2020, and volume 3 within a year after releasing the second volume. Once again, life has intruded and I have just recently contracted with an academic publisher to produce my lengthy and controversial study on the source origins of the four New Testament gospels. The major draft of that book is complete, and I will have to spend time seeing how much editing and rewriting needs to be done and getting it in final shape for publication. That time frame is uncertain I hope that this won’t cause much delay in producing the next two volumes of Genesis Chronology and Egyptian King-lists: The Egyptian Origins of Genesis History. More details on the Gospels project in a couple of months.

]]>http://biblemythhistory.com/long-delayed-supplement-to-the-moses-mystery-to-be-released-early-2019/feed/0310Reports on the recent SBL, AAR, and ASOR annual meetingshttp://biblemythhistory.com/reports-on-the-recent-sbl-aar-and-asor-annual-meetings/
http://biblemythhistory.com/reports-on-the-recent-sbl-aar-and-asor-annual-meetings/#respondSun, 16 Dec 2018 20:29:26 +0000http://biblemythhistory.com/?p=315Every year in the week or so before Thanksgiving, The Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), The American Academy of Religion (AAR), the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR, which I believe is planning to change …Continue Reading

]]>Every year in the week or so before Thanksgiving, The Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), The American Academy of Religion (AAR), the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR, which I believe is planning to change its name), and Biblical Archaeology Review’s Bible Fest hold overlapping conferences in the same city. The largest by far is the joint meeting of SBL and AAR, which presents literally hundreds of panels and discussions over three and a half days. That conference also includes a massive book sellers hall, featuring most of the major publishers and many lesser ones who sell books on related subjects. I believe the joint attendance for SBL-AAR approaches 10,000 attendees. While SBL and AAR cover almost everything biblical or religious, ASOR is primarily concerned with archaeology. This year all the organizations gathered in Denver.

I attended the SBL events and enjoyed a number of stimulating sessions. My friend and colleague at BASNY, Peter Feinman, struggles to attend both ASOR and SBL. See his two reports on the handling of 10th century Israel here and here.

I particularly enjoyed the panel “Ideological criticism and the Book of Samuel,” which dealt with the problematic story of Samuel’s rejection of Saul, as Samuel appears to have done nothing wrong. The bible, and implicitly the panel, treats the story as God’s rejection of Samuel. But as I suggested during the Q and A, it is Samuel, not God, who rejects Saul, and it is simply a case of Samuel’s corrupt family being rejected by Israel and Saul being chosen by Israel as Samuel’s replacement.

The story is nothing more than a political conflict between the corrupt Shiloh Priesthood, rich on perks, and the Israelites, lacking justice from the corrupt Shiloh judges. Samuel’s alliance with David was just another Shiloh power grab. I suggested to the panel, that reading the story, one gets the sense that Samuel had been lurking behind the boulder and delaying his appearance so that when Saul could no longer safely wait any longer and had to conduct certain rituals, Samuel could jump out from behind the stone and accuse him of violating God’s law. That got a few smiles.

]]>http://biblemythhistory.com/reports-on-the-recent-sbl-aar-and-asor-annual-meetings/feed/0315Sorry for delay in postinghttp://biblemythhistory.com/sorry-for-delay-in-posting/
http://biblemythhistory.com/sorry-for-delay-in-posting/#respondThu, 08 Nov 2018 17:31:37 +0000http://biblemythhistory.com/?p=302I haven’t posted in a while. Sorry. I was traveling all of September, and finishing up my next book before and after. Details on the new book in a few days.

]]>http://biblemythhistory.com/sorry-for-delay-in-posting/feed/0302Were early Christians embarrassed by John’s baptism of Jesus?http://biblemythhistory.com/were-early-christians-embarrassed-by-johns-baptism-of-jesus/
http://biblemythhistory.com/were-early-christians-embarrassed-by-johns-baptism-of-jesus/#respondSat, 28 Jul 2018 20:32:57 +0000http://biblemythhistory.com/?p=276The Criterion of Embarrassment has come in for a lot of hard knocks lately, and with good reason. John Meier describes it as follows: “The point of the criterion is that the early Church would …Continue Reading

]]>The Criterion of Embarrassment has come in for a lot of hard knocks lately, and with good reason. John Meier describes it as follows: “The point of the criterion is that the early Church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents.” (Meier, J. P. (1991). A marginal Jew, rethinking the historical Jesus: Volume one, The Roots of the Problem and the Person (p. 168). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.) The chief criticism is that we, in our modern times and modern perspectives, don’t know that early Christians were embarrassed by what we think is a troubling passage.

In applying the criterion, Meier adds in a footnote, “While the criteria are usually aimed at the sayings of Jesus in particular, it must be remembered that they can also be applied to the actions of Jesus.” Meier then explains how the criterion is applied. “Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus” he argues “would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Four Gospels.” (Meier, J. P. (1991). A marginal Jew, rethinking the historical Jesus: Volume one, The Roots of the Problem and the Person (p. 168). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.) By tracing how the gospels handle the incident, he suggests, one can identify some legitimate facts about Jesus as an historical figure.

Meier then gives as a “prime example, the baptism of the supposedly superior and sinless Jesus by his supposed inferior, John the Baptist, who proclaimed “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Meier, J. P. (1991). A marginal Jew, rethinking the historical Jesus: Volume one, The Roots of the Problem and the Person (p. 168). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.) He traces out the story through the four gospels.

I would like to challenge the premise that the baptism of Jesus by John was an embarrassing situation. I don’t believe a sinless Jesus was being baptized for the forgiveness of sins. I believe he was being baptized to show that process of baptism has henceforth been transformed from a baptism by water to a baptism by the Holy Spirit.

I want to start with some evidence from Josephus, the Jewish historian from the first century. He writes of John the Baptist that he was a much-admired teacher and that many Jews believe that God had punished Herod for having the Baptist executed by causing Herod to lose a war against his non-Jewish neighbor, King Aretas. “Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist.” (Josephus, Antiquities 5.2.116.) More importantly, Josephus, who would have been directly familiar with many eye-witnesses to and followers of John, gives a very different description of the purpose of John’s baptism than does the gospels. John, he says,

was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness (emphasis added).” (Josephus, Antiquities, 5.2.117.)

What Josephus says here is that the gospels are wrong about the nature of John’s baptism. His discussion of John’s baptism may even have been intended as a direct rebuke of Christians who considered John a witness on behalf of Jesus. Purification of the soul, he noted, came from righteous behavior. If Josephus is right about what Jews believed, then opponents of the Jesus movement would not have been critical of a sinless Jesus being baptized by an inferior John the Baptist. From the Jewish perspective of John the Baptist, baptism was not about being sinful. Something else is going on with the baptism of Jesus. For that, we need to go back to the basic gospel stories.

The gospel baptism stories share a basic template. John baptizes Jesus; the baptism leads to a revelation of the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus; a voice declares that Jesus is the son of God, and baptism is no longer about the water but about the Holy Spirit.

“I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. (Mark 1:8.)

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11.)

“He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Luke 3:16.)

“He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” (John 1:33.)

There are differences in how the gospels depict the event. For example, in the synoptic gospels it appears that only Jesus sees the dove descend and hear the voice. (Mark 1:10; Matthew 3:16; Luke 3:21.) In John’s gospel and in Luke, the baptism isn’t depicted but it is referenced as having occurred. Matthew depicts John being concerned that it should be Jesus that baptizes him, rather than the other way around. In John, it is John who witnesses the Holy Spirit descend and it is he, not a voice from heaven, that declares Jesus being the son of God.

John also says that the baptism by water was for the purpose of revealing the one to come, who he previously did not recognize. All four gospels say that “the one to come,” i.e., Jesus, would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

I suggest, therefore, that the baptism of Jesus by John was a symbolic act that triggered a new understanding of what baptism was and who Jesus was. The troubles reflected in the gospel are not about embarrassment but about not understanding why Jesus wanted to go through a baptism in the first place. But, as the gospels all explain, the baptism triggered the recognition of who Jesus was and what baptism was to become. Whatever conflicts Christians may have had with Jews over the nature of John’s baptism was rendered moot by this new understanding of who Jesus was and what baptism meant to his followers.

If embarrassment isn’t the issue, what can we say if anything, about the historical Jesus. I’m not sure we can say anything. What seems to have occurred is a polemic debate between Jews and Christians as to the claim that John testified to Jesus being the Messiah. Jews appear to have argued that Christians didn’t even understand what John’s baptism meant and Christians decided to jettison the original baptism story for a new story that depicted a new form of baptism that distinguished Christians for Jews.

Whether John ever baptized Jesus is still an open question and what that baptism would have meant is hard to say. Intriguingly, the Q source seems to acknowledge that the early story about John declaring Jesus to be the one to come prior to baptizing him may not be true. After the fact, John, while imprisoned, sends messengers to Jesus to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?” (Matthew 11:3; Luke 7:20.) While this statement could certainly be an act of despair as John faces his death, it is certainly fodder that can be used to question Christian claims about an endorsement by John the Baptist. This seems a far more embarrassing admission about the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus than the matter of baptism.

]]>http://biblemythhistory.com/were-early-christians-embarrassed-by-johns-baptism-of-jesus/feed/0276Prof. Davila links to and comments on my essay on the Gospel calendar problem.http://biblemythhistory.com/prof-davila-links-to-and-comments-on-my-essay-on-the-gospel-calendar-problem/
http://biblemythhistory.com/prof-davila-links-to-and-comments-on-my-essay-on-the-gospel-calendar-problem/#respondTue, 17 Jul 2018 20:52:38 +0000http://biblemythhistory.com/?p=247Prof. James Davila, at PaleoJudaica.com links to my essay on Bible and Interpretation about “Roman Days, Jewish Nights and the Gospel Calendar Problem.” He also comments, “I didn’t think it was possible for me to …Continue Reading

]]>http://biblemythhistory.com/prof-davila-links-to-and-comments-on-my-essay-on-the-gospel-calendar-problem/feed/0247Roman Days, Jewish Nights, and the Gospel Calendar Problemshttp://biblemythhistory.com/roman-days-jewish-nights-and-the-gospel-calendar-problems/
http://biblemythhistory.com/roman-days-jewish-nights-and-the-gospel-calendar-problems/#respondFri, 13 Jul 2018 01:10:32 +0000http://biblemythhistory.com/?p=222My essay, Roman Days, Jewish Nights, and Gospel Calendar Problems is now online at Bible and Interpretation. You can read it here or go to the Bible and Interpretation site and click a link there. …Continue Reading

]]>http://biblemythhistory.com/roman-days-jewish-nights-and-the-gospel-calendar-problems/feed/0222Joab and Abishai as Apologetic Tropeshttp://biblemythhistory.com/joab-and-abishai-as-apologetic-tropes/
http://biblemythhistory.com/joab-and-abishai-as-apologetic-tropes/#respondWed, 04 Jul 2018 21:44:53 +0000http://biblemythhistory.com/?p=205Most biblical scholars familiar with the biblical accounts of David’s rise to the throne of Israel recognize that the text has been overlaid with an apologia defending David against charges that he murdered his way …Continue Reading

]]>Most biblical scholars familiar with the biblical accounts of David’s rise to the throne of Israel recognize that the text has been overlaid with an apologia defending David against charges that he murdered his way to the throne by killing off those who stood in his way. The most significant assassination charged to him was that he arranged for King Saul to be murdered.

Two characters in David’s retinue appear to take on literary roles in this apologia, the brothers Joab and Abishai, David’s two chief henchman. Two types of stories are assigned to these characters. In one set, Abishai urges violent action against David’s opponents and David chastises him for his suggestions. In the other, Joab kills off an opponent of David, and David (defensively) claims to be innocent and that Joab is to blame.

Let’s look at Abishai first. When David was on the run from King Saul (because of suspected treason) there is a scene where David and Abishai sneak into Saul’s camp while the king is asleep. Standing over Saul’s body, Abishai says, “God has given your enemy into your hand today; now therefore let me pin him to the ground with one stroke of the spear; I will not strike him twice (1Samuel 26:8).”

David responds, “Do not destroy him; for who can raise his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless? As the Lord lives, the Lord will strike him down; or his day will come to die; or he will go down into battle and perish. The Lord forbid that I should raise my hand against the Lord’s anointed; but now take the spear that is at his head, and the water jar, and let us go (1Samuel 26:9-11).”

Surely this kindly gesture of David’s absolves him of any plot to kill Saul. But, about that Amalekite assassin bringing Saul’s crown to David after killing the king (2 Samuel 1:10) Hmmm.

In a second instance, when David was on the run from his son Absalom, he and Abishai encountered Shimei, a member of Saul’s family. Shimei shouted while he cursed, “Out! Out! Murderer! Scoundrel! The Lord has avenged on all of you the blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you have reigned; and the Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom. See, disaster has overtaken you; for you are a man of blood (2 Samuel 16:7-8).”

The charge here is that David was responsible for killing Saul. Abishai responded, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and take off his head (2 Samuel 16:9).”

To which David replied, “My own son seeks my life; how much more now may this Benjaminite! Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him. It may be that the Lord will look on my distress, and the Lord will repay me with good for this cursing of me today.” Once again, Abishai urges David’s enemy be slaughtered and David reprimanded him, showing David to be kindand generous to Saul’s embittered family.

After David defeated Absalom (more in a moment), Shimei bowed before him and sought forgiveness. Abishai, responded, “Shall not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed the Lord’s anointed (2 Samuel 19:21)?”

Kindly David replied, “What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah, that you should today become an adversary to me? Shall anyone be put to death in Israel this day? For do I not know that I am this day king over Israel (2 Samuel 19:20)?” David spared Shimei.

In all three instances, Abishai urges David to kill his opponents from the house of Saul, including Saul himself. David reprimands Abishai on each occasion.

Abishai’s brother Joab plays a different role. After Saul’s death, the main obstacle to David’s control over Israel was Abner, Saul’s chief general. Joab had a grudge against Abner because the general (justifiably) killed one of Joab’s other brothers.

Subsequently, after a peace conference between David and Abner. David accepted the peace offer and let Abner leave. Joab was furious. Joab chased after Abner, feigned friendship, and then stabbed him to death (2 Samuel 3:22-30).

David was apoplectic. “Tear your clothes, and put on sackcloth, and mourn over Abner (2 Sam 3:31).”

“So all the people and all Israel understood that day that the king had no part in the killing of Abner son of Ner (2 Samuel 3:37).” See, it was all Joab’s fault. He didn’t follow decent David’s words.

In a second instance, during Absolom’s rebellion against David, a relative named Amasa, remained with Absalom. Afterwards, as part of the peace process, David appointed Amasa as commander of David’s army, in place of Joab (2 Samuel 19:13). Guess who Joab kills shortly thereafter. Yep, Amasa.

“Joab said to Amasa, ‘Is it well with you, my brother?’ And Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. But Amasa did not notice the sword in Joab’s hand; Joab struck him in the belly so that his entrails poured out on the ground, and he died. He did not strike a second blow (2 Samuel 20:9-10.)

Lastly, when David finally had his rebellious son Absalom on the run, David ordered his soldiers, “Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom (2 Samuel 18:5.) An how did Joab follow that decree? “He took three spears in his hand, and thrust them into the heart of Absalom, while he was still alive in the oak (2 Samuel 18:14).”

In the event that David’s innocence in these executions wasn’t lost, we find David on his deathbed saying, “Moreover you know also what Joab son of Zeruiah did to me, how he dealt with the two commanders of the armies of Israel, Abner son of Ner, and Amasa son of Jether, whom he murdered, retaliating in time of peace for blood that had been shed in war, and putting the blood of war on the belt around his waist, and on the sandals on his feet (1 Kings 2:5).”

On the literary level, then, we find a contrast between Joab and Abishai. Joab is portrayed as a rogue murder who disobeys David’s peaceful overtures to his former enemies. Abishai, on the other hand, urges David to take violent actions against his enemies and David reprimands him for such violent suggestions. David is just a man of peace, kind to all his enemies.

I don’t know if anyone has previously noticed this literary relationship. But the revelation was new to me. The coincidences suggest that Joab and Abishai were each singled out to emphasize a particular characteristic of David in the construction of the apologia. a deliberate element in constructing the apologia.

]]>http://biblemythhistory.com/joab-and-abishai-as-apologetic-tropes/feed/0205I have an article coming up on the Bible and Interpretation sitehttp://biblemythhistory.com/i-have-an-article-coming-up-on-the-bible-and-interpretation-site/
http://biblemythhistory.com/i-have-an-article-coming-up-on-the-bible-and-interpretation-site/#respondThu, 28 Jun 2018 21:06:03 +0000http://biblemythhistory.com/?p=202I recently submitted an article to Bible and Interpretation titled “Roman Days, Jewish NIghts, and the Gospel Calendar Problem.” It should appear in the latter part of July and I’ll post a link when it …Continue Reading

]]>I recently submitted an article to Bible and Interpretation titled “Roman Days, Jewish NIghts, and the Gospel Calendar Problem.” It should appear in the latter part of July and I’ll post a link when it is published. The article examines some of the chronological issues affecting the gospel narratives that arise from the fact that the authors of the Gospels used a Roman calendar day (sunrise to sunrise) to describe events unfolding according to the Jewish Calendar day (sunset to sunset.) It discusses the impact on such issues as when the Sabbath started and ended, on what days Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread occurred, and the so-called Day of Preparation.